383

American XL bully dogs to be banned after attacks, Rishi Sunak says (news.sky.com)

submitted 1 year ago by alphacyberranger@lemmy.world to c/world@lemmy.world

256 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[-] IchNichtenLichten@lemmy.world 43 points 1 year ago

There simply isn’t enough accurate information available to support such a vitriolic, knee-jerk reaction to a dog’s breed in and of itself.

Of course there is. Not a week goes by in the UK without an attack by this breed. Some survive, many do not.

[-] dublet@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago

Not a week goes by in the UK without an attack by this breed. Some survive, many do not.

Can you please link some statistics on this?

The only source I could find says:

Six of the 10 fatal dog attacks in the UK last year were linked to XL bullies, and at least three of the seven this year.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/sep/15/why-are-american-xl-bullies-being-banned-and-how-will-it-work

That's too many deaths, of course, but hardly one a week.

[-] IchNichtenLichten@lemmy.world 21 points 1 year ago

Saturday: https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-birmingham-66256193

Wednesday: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12522011/Shocking-moment-dog-mauls-boy-football.html

Thursday: https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/sep/15/man-dies-after-dog-attack-in-west-midlands

That's 3 in 6 days.

[-] dublet@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago

Wednesday: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12522011/Shocking-moment-dog-mauls-boy-football.html

That one is a Staffordshire bull terrier, not the breed being banned for these attacks.

That’s 3 in 6 days.

You didn't actually respond to my comment about a request for statistics, rather posting some individual stories. So since I posted I found this article from the BBC. It states that:

In 2022, there were 8,819 admissions to hospital in England with dog bites.

So that's actually 24 dog attacks per day, so the problem is even more severe than you suggest, though the claim of only "some survive" then is misleading at best.

In 2022, there were 482 sentences given to owners of dangerously out of control dogs which resulted in an injury to a person in public

Out of all those hospital admissions, there's 24 attacks a day being deemed criminal by our justice system. That data suggests that this problem is by no means limited to the XL bully breed.

[-] IchNichtenLichten@lemmy.world -1 points 1 year ago

That one is a Staffordshire bull terrier, not the breed being banned for these attacks.

Two attacks in six days rather than three then. Does this somehow make it acceptable?

They're a dangerous breed and should be banned. No amount of pedantry or weasel words can change that.

[-] PM_me_your_vagina_thanks@kbin.social 9 points 1 year ago

Mostly cause we, y'know, ban the dangerous breeds, so we have a lot fewer dangerous dogs attacking people.

[-] dublet@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

482 dog attacks in 2022 resulting in criminal action but a fraction are caused by this particular breed.

In one recent study, researchers compared behavioural tendencies such as impulsivity and sensitivity to positive and negative stimuli – known to trigger aggressive responses – between eight dog breeds that are legislated against (including pit bull types), and 17 breeds that are not. This suggested that breed alone was a poor predictor of individual behavioural tendencies, including those related to aggression.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/sep/11/banning-some-dog-breeds-in-the-uk-wont-stop-attacks-on-humans

[-] squiblet@kbin.social 9 points 1 year ago

That’s 6 of 10 fatal dog attacks. Though it surely disappoints them, not all attacks by pit bulls are fatal.

[-] dublet@lemmy.world -1 points 1 year ago

Apparently requesting to have a fact based discussion is offensive. I merely asked for actual data for some rather extraordinary claims.

[-] squiblet@kbin.social 1 points 1 year ago

I don’t think I seemed offended. I pointed out that the fact you refuted wasn’t what the person you replied to was asserting.

I see the statistics you cite come up as the first result on searches. Did you look at anything else? “Dog attacks in UK annually” has a lot of results for me.

Here’s a BBC article for example:
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-64798162
which states

Last year, there were nearly 22,000 cases of out-of-control dogs causing injury. In 2018, there were just over 16,000.

as far as info on which breeds are involved, I’m sure it’s out there.

[-] dublet@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago

I pointed out that the fact you refuted wasn’t what the person you replied to was asserting.

There were two claims asserted:

"Not a week goes by in the UK without an attack by this breed."
"Some survive, many do not."

(Emphasis mine) The first is not something I can find evidence for as there seems to be no break down easily availably by breed. And as for the second, most survive , 0.1% do not.

The down votes being given for asking for data seems like I'm offending some. 🤷

as far as info on which breeds are involved, I’m sure it’s out there.

Does not seem to be as you have also failed to find it. There is aggregate data for all dogs, which yes, is easily found actually refused some of the assertions that the person made.

Banning based on breed seems like a knee jerk reaction based on anecdotes.

[-] squiblet@kbin.social 1 points 1 year ago

True, “many” seems to be an overstatement. Being mauled by a dog isn’t great, either.

Does not seem to be as you have also failed to find it.

That’s a function of how much time I spent looking. You seem to be more engaged in this topic than I am, so perhaps you could find the data.

[-] Honytawk@lemmy.zip 1 points 1 year ago

These stats are American, and only the ones that got in the news:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fatal_dog_attacks_in_the_United_States

this post was submitted on 15 Sep 2023

383 points (91.7% liked)

World News

39104 readers

1212 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

Rule 1: posts have the following requirements:
- Post news articles only
- Video links are NOT articles and will be removed.
- Title must match the article headline
- Not United States Internal News
- Recent (Past 30 Days)
- Screenshots/links to other social media sites (Twitter/X/Facebook/Youtube/reddit, etc.) are explicitly forbidden, as are link shorteners.
Rule 2: Do not copy the entire article into your post. The key points in 1-2 paragraphs is allowed (even encouraged!), but large segments of articles posted in the body will result in the post being removed. If you have to stop and think "Is this fair use?", it probably isn't. Archive links, especially the ones created on link submission, are absolutely allowed but those that avoid paywalls are not.
Rule 3: Opinions articles, or Articles based on misinformation/propaganda may be removed. Sources that have a Low or Very Low factual reporting rating or MBFC Credibility Rating may be removed.
Rule 4: Posts or comments that are homophobic, transphobic, racist, sexist, anti-religious, or ableist will be removed. “Ironic” prejudice is just prejudiced.
Posts and comments must abide by the lemmy.world terms of service UPDATED AS OF 10/19
Rule 5: Keep it civil. It's OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It's NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.

Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.

Rule 6: Memes, spam, other low effort posting, reposts, misinformation, advocating violence, off-topic, trolling, offensive, regarding the moderators or meta in content may be removed at any time.
Rule 7: We didn't USED to need a rule about how many posts one could make in a day, then someone posted NINETEEN articles in a single day. Not comments, FULL ARTICLES. If you're posting more than say, 10 or so, consider going outside and touching grass. We reserve the right to limit over-posting so a single user does not dominate the front page.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.